On 15/02/2017 05:06, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 03:48:52PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> Christoph,
>>
>> On 2/15/17 15:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> this looks reasonable, but we should ask Guilherme and Ram to confirm
>>> it fixes their originally reported issue. I've added th
Bart,
On 2/16/17 12:28, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 11:52 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> Thanks for the pointers. I checked libiscsi tests. And from what is done
>> there, it seems to me that it is basically impossible to distinguished
>> between a buggy hardware response and a
Martin,
On 2/16/17 12:36, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Damien,
>
> Damien> So the conclusion may be that we need to drop everything ? The
> Damien> mpt3sas patch breaks ZBC now, so that must be removed too.
>
> Nah.
>
> But it's important that we restrict the rounding to TYPE_FS requests
> (i.e.
> "Damien" == Damien Le Moal writes:
Damien,
Damien> So the conclusion may be that we need to drop everything ? The
Damien> mpt3sas patch breaks ZBC now, so that must be removed too.
Nah.
But it's important that we restrict the rounding to TYPE_FS requests
(i.e. I/Os issued by the kernel w
On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 11:52 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Thanks for the pointers. I checked libiscsi tests. And from what is done
> there, it seems to me that it is basically impossible to distinguished
> between a buggy hardware response and an in-purpose (or buggy) not
> aligned data-out buffer
Bart,
On 2/16/17 11:52, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Bart,
>
> On 2/16/17 10:10, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:54 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> On 2/16/17 01:42, Bart Van Assche wrote:
An additional concern: what if the size of the Data-Out buffer is not a
multiple of
Bart,
On 2/16/17 10:10, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:54 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 2/16/17 01:42, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> An additional concern: what if the size of the Data-Out buffer is not a
>>> multiple of the logical block size? Shouldn't we round down (good_by
On Thu, 2017-02-16 at 09:54 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2/16/17 01:42, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > An additional concern: what if the size of the Data-Out buffer is not a
> > multiple of the logical block size? Shouldn't we round down (good_bytes -
> > resid) instead of rounding up resid?
>
>
Bart,
On 2/16/17 01:42, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:12 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
>> index 1f5d92a..d05a328 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
>> @@ -1790,6 +1790,8 @@ static int sd_done(struct
Bart,
On 2/16/17 00:10, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:12 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> +resid = round_up(resid, sector_size);
>> +if (resid < good_bytes)
>> +good_bytes -= resid;
>> +else
On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:12 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> index 1f5d92a..d05a328 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> @@ -1790,6 +1790,8 @@ static int sd_done(struct scsi_cmnd *SCpnt)
> {
> int result = SCpnt->resu
On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:12 +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> + resid = round_up(resid, sector_size);
> + if (resid < good_bytes)
> + good_bytes -= resid;
> + else
> + good_bytes = 0;
>
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 03:48:52PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Christoph,
>
> On 2/15/17 15:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > this looks reasonable, but we should ask Guilherme and Ram to confirm
> > it fixes their originally reported issue. I've added them to Cc.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Guilherme
Christoph,
On 2/15/17 15:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> this looks reasonable, but we should ask Guilherme and Ram to confirm
> it fixes their originally reported issue. I've added them to Cc.
Thank you.
Guilherme, Ram,
Please test ! The original fix breaks the zoned block device support
that
Hi Damien,
this looks reasonable, but we should ask Guilherme and Ram to confirm
it fixes their originally reported issue. I've added them to Cc.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:12:30AM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Commit "mpt3sas: Force request partial completion alignment" was not
> considering t
Commit "mpt3sas: Force request partial completion alignment" was not
considering the case of REQ_TYPE_FS commands not operating on sector
size units (e.g. REQ_OP_ZONE_REPORT and its 64B aligned partial
replies). This could result is incorrectly retrying (forever) those
commands.
Move the partial c
16 matches
Mail list logo
